Skip to main content
. 2018 Mar 23;32(3):1077–1083. doi: 10.1111/jvim.15120

Table 1.

Comparison of demographic data between the cross‐match (study) group and the noncross‐match (control) group

Category CM+ CM– P value
Sex .38
Female 12 (50) 9 (37.5)
Male 12 (50) 15 (62.5)
Age (years) 9.8 ± 5.0 10.7 ± 5.3 .54
Weight (kg) 3.9 ± 1.2 4.5 ± 1.44 .14
Breed .23
DSH 21 (87.5) 19 (79.2)
Non‐DSH 3 (12.5) 5 (20.8)
Blood type .38
A 22 (91.7) 21 (87.5)
B 2 (8.3) 2 (8.3)
AB 0 (0) 1 (4.2)
Pre‐transfusion PCV (%) 16.3 ± 3.1 17.3 ± 4.2 .33
Time to transfusion (hours) 2.2 ± 0.5 2.2 ± 0.3 .58
Age of pRBCs (days) 12.9 ± 1.7 13 ± 1.8 .98
Source of pRBCs .76
Animal Blood Resourcesd 21 (87.5) 19 (79.2)
Hemosolutionsc 2 (8.3) 3 (12.5)
Ohio Stateb 2 (8.3) 2 (8.3)
Reason for transfusion
Destruction 1 (4.2) 1 (4.2) .25
Blood loss 12 (50) 12 (50) .51
↓ Production 17 (70.8) 17 (70.8) .23

Abbreviations: CM+, cross‐match (study) group; CM–, noncross‐match (control) group; PCV, packed cell volume; DSH, domestic short hair; ↓, decreased; SD, standard deviation.

Values are presented as mean ± SD for continuous variables and as number (%) for categorical variables.

bOhio State University Blood Bank, Columbus, OH.

cHemosolutions, Colorado Springs, CO.

dAnimal Blood Resources International, Dixon, CA.